• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Down wind faster than the wind

CORed said:
Silly me. I always thought that minimizing friction was the whole idea behind wheels and wheel bearings.
Click to expand...

No, not the wheel bearing friction. The friction too the belt.
If you try too hard, it becomes obvious...
 
spork said:
I did everything I could to faithfully execute your experimental protocol. Please tell me specifically where I deviate from your clear instructions.
Click to expand...

The entire video. No, a new test with controlled conditions.
The instruction was to make sure that the wheel is in good contact with the belt. You must demonstrate that is is sufficient, This evidence is rejected.
 
humber said:
The entire video. No, a new test with controlled conditions.
The instruction was to make sure that the wheel is in good contact with the belt. You must demonstrate that is is sufficient, This evidence is rejected.
Click to expand...

I see, he must demonstrate it to your likening. So we have.

Video showing cart moving forward. Humber don't like. Humber claim that the contact to the belt is not good enough.

Video show that the wheel speed are the same as wheel speed. Cart moving forward. Humber don't like. Humber claim that the contact to the belt is not good enough.

Humber is it possibly that you determine a method that show if the contact are good enough for you before the test is performed or is it really

Cart move forward = not enough of contact with belt no matter what.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is so, you are getting more momentum out in a way that you can not put it in, and also increasing the energy as a result.

You are accelerating faster when the only force on you is friction.
Click to expand...
Pondering turtle, you are being silly. There is an obvious energy source - a velocity differential. Energy can be extracted from velocity differentials. This is, and always will be, true.

You state that the forces are all straight against a blade. An angled blade. Then you say that at an angle to the wind you can exceed wind velocity.

Propeller blades have angles...
 
Anyone who is wondering seriously about Humber's inspiration for this interesting view and argument might want to have a look at this article:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/11/gottfried-leibniz-anniversary.html

Humber has been having us on from post one. He is arguing this as Liebniz would have argued and all the time claiming that he is propounding Newtonian physics. He has copied Liebniz' style impeccably, including the plagiarism of Newton's work.

As spork has observed on several other threads, discussions about the cart quickly change from physical considerations into the metaphysical, where belief overrides observation. Humber has argued very well in Liebniz' stead, demonstrating what likely would have transpired in an actual debate with Newton.

Thank you for the insight into the history of physics, Humber, and I hope you now have enough material for your thesis on the philosophy of physics and demonstrating how a simple concept (momentum in this case) can be used in two different ways to support two seemingly similar but distinctly opposing methodologies.
 
Last edited:
mender said:
Anyone who is wondering seriously about Humber's inspiration for this interesting view and argument might want to have a look at this article:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/11/gottfried-leibniz-anniversary.html

Humber has been having us on from post one. He is arguing this as Liebniz would have argued and all the time claiming that he is propounding Newtonian physics. He has copied Liebniz' style impeccably.

As spork has observed on several other threads, discussions about the cart quickly change from physical considerations into the metaphysic, where belief overrides observation. Humber has argued very well in Liebniz' stead, demonstrating what likely would have transpired in an actual debate with Newton.

Thank you for the insight into the history of physics, Humber, and I hope you now have enough material for your thesis on the philosophy of physics and demonstrating how a simple concept (momentum in this case) can be used in two different ways to support two seemingly similar but distinctly opposing methodologies.
Click to expand...

Nope momentum is conserved. Tell a gyroscope it's not.
 
fredriks said:
I see, he must demonstrate it to your likening. So we have.

Video showing cart moving forward. Humber don't like. Humber claim that the contact to the belt is not good enough.

Video show that the wheel speed are the same as wheel speed. Cart moving forward. Humber don't like. Humber claim that the contact to the belt is not good enough.

Humber is it possibly that you determine a method that show if the contact are good enough for you before the test is performed or is it really

Cart move forward = not enough of contact with belt no matter what.
Click to expand...

Here's a tip. If Spork was sure he had a video where my claim was clearly denied, he would be shouting from the rooftops. That he is using a mock formal tone, tells me he does not.
 
Hi fredriks

fredriks said:
I see, he must demonstrate it to your likening.
Click to expand...
You got it.

humber said:
The instruction was to make sure that the wheel is in good contact with the belt. You must demonstrate that is is sufficient.
Click to expand...
The experimenter met the instruction to "make sure that the wheel is in good contact with the belt" by checking that the cart made progress downwind. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have done. Anyone who understands the cart realises that it wouldn't work with poor traction. It's like when I arrive somewhere in my car, that kind of verifies that the wheels were in good contact with the road. You wouldn't understand. Just take it on trust.

It did not have sufficient weight over the drive wheels to cause it to go down-tread without being so much weight as to cause seriously detrimental losses due to bearing friction, nor so much as to squash the whole contraption flat, but no-one has yet proposed a hypothesis about that. You started to pretend to do that, but then you chickened out. Remember?

Nice demo, spork. God, is that plastic thing magic or what?
 
humber said:
Here's a tip. If Spork was sure he had a video where my claim was clearly denied, he would be shouting from the rooftops. That he is using a mock formal tone, tells me he does not.
Click to expand...

I did your extremely carefully conceived and meticulously described experimental protocol right down to the finest detail. You were good enough to give me a really concise, clear, and specific test plan - and I followed it.

It didn't give the results you expected so you now claim that somehow my tone in telling you you're wrong proves you right. I'll give you this much - it makes as much sense as anything you've said.

But you never answered my question - aside from drooling on yourself while others feed you - what do you do for a living?
 
humber said:
No, not the wheel bearing friction. The friction too the belt.
If you try too hard, it becomes obvious...
Click to expand...

So now now your are again claiming that the drive wheels are slipping, showing that you haven't yet grasped the basics of how the cart works. If the wheels don't have traction, the propeller doesn't spin, and the cart moves with the treadmill (putting it in your sacred, ground-based frame of reference).

Come on, Humber, either the wheels are slipping or they aren't.
 
spork said:
I did your extremely carefully conceived and meticulously described experimental protocol right down to the finest detail. You were good enough to give me a really concise, clear, and specific test plan - and I followed it.
Click to expand...
Since you have admitted that you adjust the cart to achieve 'balance' you are guilty of experimental fitting; adjusting your experiment to achieve the desired result. That invalidates all your evidence.

It didn't give the results you expected so you now claim that somehow my tone in telling you you're wrong proves you right. I'll give you this much - it makes as much sense as anything you've said.
Click to expand...
I thought you would use that inference, but of course, it's false.

But you never answered my question - aside from drooling on yourself while others feed you - what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
That is what I do.
 
Humber:
>Since you have admitted that you adjust the cart to achieve 'balance'
>you are guilty of experimental fitting; adjusting your experiment to
>achieve the desired result. That invalidates all your evidence.

It wasn't *our* test humber, and thus can't be *our* "experimental fitting".

It was *your* carefully described test parameters that were faithfully executed to perfection -- thus it can only be seen as *your* attempt to adjust the experiment to get *your* desired result.

Of course since it didn't perform as you predicted, that now invalidates all of *your* evidence.

JB
 
humber said:
"aside from drooling on yourself while others feed you - what do you do for a living?"
That is what I do.
Click to expand...

As I suspected - a smartass remark instead of a simple answer. You say you "move around a lot". I can only assume you're an inmate that keeps getting transferred because your life is constantly endangered as you annoy the crap out of all your "colleagues".

I once knew a guy that studied aerodynamics in prison. His grasp was about like yours.

Frankly I don't think it's fair to the other inmates.
 
humber said:
Do the test properly, then you won't have problem ...
Click to expand...

You were specifically and more than once asked to clarify, how much weight would be necessary for the test to be proper. You failed to answer. The test was made. You didn't accept the result, because "there was not enough" weight. How sick is that?.

Can you come up with ANY test or observation that will show to your satisfaction if the wheels have enough contact with the surface or not. The only limitation for your imagination is, that the result [wheels are in contact] cannot be based on observation [cart is moving backwards].

Don't think you can.

BTW: Do you understand why the said limitation is relevant?

In humberverse there is a test that will validate humbers model. Actually, there are many, an infinite number of tests. You see, any test that will validate humbers model will validate humbers model. Does that make sence to you humber, or is there just too much momentum?
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
It is indeed. Humber, have you watched it? Even you might have a shot at understanding something explained so slowly and clearly.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Michael and his videos (with which I'm very impressed) - let's be serious. There is very little powerful enough to overcome the unwillingess to understand.
 
Michael, your videos just get better and better. You know, at one time, if someone had told me that I would enjoy watching soft toys do physics, I don't think I'd have believed them.

Carlos must be a humming-bird, I guess. Or he's levitating. Levitating and humming?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom